Patna High CourtL.P.A/1735/2016dismissed

Jageshwar Sahu And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-05-08Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh,The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1735 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7978 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Jageshwar Sahu, son of Mangni Ram Sahu, resident of village/Mohalla Rajendra Nagar, Ward No. 15, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Chauk, P.O.+P.S.+DistrictSupaul.

2. Rajiv Lochan Verma, son of Late Mahabir Lal Das, resident of village Jagatpur, P.O. Barail, Police Station- Supaul, District Supaul. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Supaul, District Supaul. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellants : None For the Respondents : Mrs. Manisha Singh, AC to GP-7 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 08-05-2017 None appears for the Appellants. Mrs. Manisha Singh, AC to GP-7, appears for the Respondents.

Seeking exception to an order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the learned Writ Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

Petitioners were retired after they have completed 42 years of service treating them to have attained the age of

Patna High Court LPA No.1735 of 2016 dt.08-05-2017 2/2 superannuation i.e. 60 years. The learned Writ Court examined the matter and found that the School was taken over from 01.01.1971 and after working for 42 years petitioners have retired. There is no error in the same, as in case the claim of the petitioners, as contended, was accepted, they would have been appointed below the age, which was not possible and considering all these aspects their retirement after completing 42 years of service has been upheld and the writ petition dismissed.

In doing so, we are of the considered view that the learned Writ Court has not committed any error warranting interference. The appeal stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 13.05.2017 Transmission Date